Quantum Physics video: mind-blowing

[xKagex]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum+physics

In physics, wave-particle duality holds that light and matter can exhibit properties of both waves and of particles. It is a central concept of quantum physics.

Watch the video and see that light and matter show signs of 'consciousness'.

Also, doesn't the fact that observation alters results mean that
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!?

[KevC]

Yupyup, learned that in gr11 or so right? Pretty cool. Intro to Quantum was a very enjoyable class last semester.

[hyperion]

owned by quantum physics.

[Emancipated]

Can someone explain that again? If a single particle electron is fired without the observer, it will act like a wave, thus colliding and produce the wave splatter; but with an observer, it will act like a marble and go through one or the other slit? I don't understand how the intervention of an observer can alter it's property.

BTW, the voice over sounds like Leonard Suskind's.

[kinggori]

God, I just hate this quantum crap

[gprime]

That was actually entertaining. I wouldn't mind if all my physics lessons were taught like this :P

[civ@uw]

Can someone explain that again? If a single particle electron is fired without the observer, it will act like a wave, thus colliding and produce the wave splatter; but with an observer, it will act like a marble and go through one or the other slit? I don't understand how the intervention of an observer can alter it's property.

BTW, the voice over sounds like Leonard Suskind's.

I think it's because the "observer" has to interact with the particle. Not entirely sure.

Also I am pretty sure the video is at least partly wrong. There will be interference even when there is only a single slit.

[kingsley]

Also I am pretty sure the video is at least partly wrong. There will be interference even when there is only a single slit.

lol, I can tell you don't have your PhD in physics yet

[Oni-kun]

that was cool

[civ@uw]

lol, I can tell you don't have your PhD in physics yet

So single slit diffraction isnt real?

Edit: this is all based on what I've learned from first year physics, so if you've done a higher level course I'd like to know whats wrong with what i've said.

[JoKeRr]

you have to understand that each electron produces a electric field which follows divergence theorem and each MOVING electron also produces magetic field which curls around the direction of moving charge.

Both electric field and magnetic field produces force, however magetic force is greater than electric by a factor of speed of light. But in regular media (air), electron travels slower than the speed of light.

When you get a electron gun shooting infinitely many electrons, you will need to use statistical mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is very deep stuff dealing with matters at sub atomic size, many 2nd and 3rd yr quantum mechanics course only deals with a small portion of it, most of the time it's only a brief overview.

I think for this particular video, you could explain it with scattering theory and the quantum theory of many-particle systems, which is beyond me.


ps: the only thing that propagates in a straight line all the time is LASER.

[traktion]

Thats creepy how can an observer alter any experiment??? :confused:

When I saw that movie it never had that scene in it, wierd. Good movie though besides the corny acting.

[Brownbear]

agreed, this was very cool.
If all lessons were taught like this, I'd be an honour student.

Got anymore of these?

[FastFokker]

agreed, this was very cool.
If all lessons were taught like this, I'd be an honour student.
Sounds like a business opportunity... open a post-secondary institution that teaches everything through cartoons. :lol:

[Crotchety Old Man]

Thats creepy how can an observer alter any experiment??? :confused:

Observers alter every experiment.

[Brownbear]

Sounds like a business opportunity... open a post-secondary institution that teaches everything through cartoons. :lol:

Heh, If its all factual, then why not? right?

[ethansmith]

Observers alter every experiment.

Yea, this whole thing is like sex. My wife and I would never have sex in front of our children but when there's no observers, we make waves.

--Ethan

P.S. I'm not normally the one to durty topics, I just couldn't help it. Sorry.

P.S.S. Really neat video!

[brwnhaggler]

that's a great little video.

Essentially, the fact that you cannot observe the particle comes from that german fellow hesienburg, which says you cannot simultaneously determine what a particles position and momentum(velocity) (this has nothing to do with refuting the scientific method).

But there is more as the video alluded to. It isn't the particle that going through the slit, it's a wave. What is the wave consisting of. Probabilities!!! The two slits are the most probable paths for the waves to take(every path is possible, just the two slits are the most probable)

Now the last step, the observer. I.e. the observer is trying to find out the particle position(path). Well the theory goes, that the observer collapses the quantum wave equation(wave of probabilities). So, by observing he causes the photon to choose a path(put a more philosophical way he created reality).

There are some wild implications, what is reality, is it just waves of probabilities that exist when we observe it( we collapse the wave equation)??? You can see how quantum physicists could be some the biggest philosophers when you start to think of the implications.

There is lots of stuff on the web. Now I'm sure the physicists on the site are going to improve the explanation, but those are the basics as I understand 'em

Enjoy! and watch where you look, you may collapse the universe.

[brwnhaggler]

LOL, i'm gonna have to remember this one.

Yea, this whole thing is like sex. My wife and I would never have sex in front of our children but when there's no observers, we make waves.

--Ethan

P.S. I'm not normally the one to durty topics, I just couldn't help it. Sorry.

P.S.S. Really neat video!

[poppa]

holy $hit, if only courses were taught like this...

[xKagex]

that's a great little video.

Essentially, the fact that you cannot observe the particle comes from that german fellow hesienburg, which says you cannot simultaneously determine what a particles position and momentum(velocity) (this has nothing to do with refuting the scientific method).

But there is more as the video alluded to. It isn't the particle that going through the slit, it's a wave. What is the wave consisting of. Probabilities!!! The two slits are the most probable paths for the waves to take(every path is possible, just the two slits are the most probable)

Now the last step, the observer. I.e. the observer is trying to find out the particle position(path). Well the theory goes, that the observer collapses the quantum wave equation(wave of probabilities). So, by observing he causes the photon to choose a path(put a more philosophical way he created reality).

There are some wild implications, what is reality, is it just waves of probabilities that exist when we observe it( we collapse the wave equation)??? You can see how quantum physicists could be some the biggest philosophers when you start to think of the implications.

There is lots of stuff on the web. Now I'm sure the physicists on the site are going to improve the explanation, but those are the basics as I understand 'em

Enjoy! and watch where you look, you may collapse the universe.

Great post. Watching this, and reading your post reminds me of the ebook "God's debris" by Scott Adams, where he presents the argument that the laws of probability is what not only shapes the universe, but keeps reshaping every particle in the universe at any point in time. If you haven't read it, it's a great read, and definately worthy of discussion.

Get the free ebook here (http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/)

[Mr.Bumpy]

I think thats bs.

[sw1ft]

I always hated physics, but that was entertaining.

[FastFokker]

I think thats bs. :lol: That comment cracked me up.

Welcome to RFD!

[brwnhaggler]

thanks man, I downloaded the book and I intend to read it!! A serious book by Scott Adams, go figure, but a very smart fellow for sure.

I actually love quantum physics, not so much the math but the implications and the discussion(it's not so cool to say this at parties incidentally).



Great post. Watching this, and reading your post reminds me of the ebook "God's debris" by Scott Adams, where he presents the argument that the laws of probability is what not only shapes the universe, but keeps reshaping every particle in the universe at any point in time. If you haven't read it, it's a great read, and definately worthy of discussion.

Get the free ebook here (http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/)

[xKagex]

thanks man, I downloaded the book and I intend to read it!! A serious book by Scott Adams, go figure, but a very smart fellow for sure.

I actually love quantum physics, not so much the math but the implications and the discussion(it's not so cool to say this at parties incidentally).


Haha, I have found it's never good to mention any of the things I'm interested in at parties. I usually drink too much and end up regretting it the next day, thinking that people probably assume I'm crazy.

But yeah, I read the ebook in a few hours, and it's awesome reading, imo.

[ragin_pyro]

I read this in physics, talked about the dude who created the experiment. I really find this stuff intresting..I like science generally..just, I can never find anything to bridge lol, I either have something easy I've covered, or find something that jumps right into like quantam physics, as I've already had experience in it type thing :(

Edit: I jus noticed that link posted, thx, I plan on reading that book...sounds really good.

[PrimoTurbo]

I heard this is bs on another forum, basically it’s from What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ Which is a movie that is filled with a lot of inaccuracies and a lot of real scientists have critizied it.

As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.

Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.

I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.

This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.

Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.

My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.

I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.

At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."

This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."

From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/usercomments?filter=hate

Controversial aspects of the film
[edit]

Factual Errors

The movie states humans are "90% water" when in fact newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%.

The movies states that if (human) cells are over stimulated by neurotransmitters they adjust through a process called down regulation. The movie also tells us that this is the cause of lifelong problems, since the down regulation is passed on in cell division. So we are used to thinking in same patterns and stimulations, hence we keep being who we are and can not change. Since this refers to the process of thought the movie must be referring to the brain. Brain cells, unlike other cells in the body, do not divide. So there is nothing to pass on. A response to this criticism is that lifelong problems also occur in joints, muscles, skin, for three examples, and these cells do divide. The relationship between the nervous and other physical systems involves the process called down regulation, not the brain and the brain only.

The movie also tells a story about Native Americans not being able to see Columbus's ships when they were offshore.

The Native Americans involved never had a written language so the story must have been passed on through oral traditions, but the Native American people and culture were decimated by disease, slavery, intermarriage, and overall mistreatment shortly after the Spaniards arrived. The Native Americans in question (from what is now known as Cuba and Hispanola) do not exist any more (at least as a people), In short: there is no reason to believe that this story is true.
[edit]

Experts

The filmmakers assembled a panel to make their point by discussing facts, opinions, and illustrative examples in ways designed to inform as well as entertain.

The film presents scientific experts to support the film's underlying philosophy, and some scientists on the panel have previously been involved in promoting similar ideas. The filmmakers do not refer to scientific publications or any scientific sources outside of the panel.
[edit]

Methods

The film doesn't present any contradictory evidence or discuss any contrarian point of view.

The film doesn't discuss the process of how certain conclusions were reached.

The film uses quantum physics as a medium to pass off their ideas as fact, despite the fact that all of their ideas contradict with evidence provided by real scientists. The "scientists" in this movie provide evidence from experiments that were carried out improperly or without any grasp of error propagation, thus making their results poor.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know#Criticism_of_the_movie

[PrimoTurbo]

Great post. Watching this, and reading your post reminds me of the ebook "God's debris" by Scott Adams, where he presents the argument that the laws of probability is what not only shapes the universe, but keeps reshaping every particle in the universe at any point in time. If you haven't read it, it's a great read, and definately worthy of discussion.

Get the free ebook here (http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/)

I have read God’s Debris, I thought it was mildly entertaining but it has very little if anything to do with science. Scott Adams creates Dilbert comics he doesn't know much about science, the book is very scientifically inaccurate and it's basically philosophy. Scott Adams admits this in the beginning of the book.

A delivery man of limited brains and no ability to argue comes up against an old-man blowhard named, without much subtlety, Mr. Avatar. Mr. Avatar spouts some teenage philosophy at the guy, and the guy lacks the brains to argue or reason effectively. So Mr. Avatar goes unchallenged in his statements. Even though many of them are simplistic or muddle headed.

The book is a carefully considered thought experiment. But it seems to have failed, and probably shouldn't have been let loose on the world. Adams sets up many straw men and knocks them down, but never puts his thoughts up against real competition. He makes extreme examples and fails to look critically at the leading questions he asks. He also makes some infuriating errors in terminology: God doesn't know everything because he is ominpotent, as Adams claims many times: The word he's looking forward to is omniscient, which is a different proposition. It may seem small, but it's just an example of the sloppy writing found in this screed.

Finally, it's a short thought experiment, sure. But why no footnotes to back up claims like "Einstein proved this..." or "Science proves that...". I can say that Einstein proved that tinfoil hats protect me from the CIA. But I'd at least want to footnote such a claim. This book, in other words, is not for critical thinkers.

Was this review helpful to you?

Three things piqued my interest in this book - one was of course that it was by Scott Adams who is without one of the best and funniest writers in the world. The second was that the introduction said that it would be a great book to discuss with buddies over a drink. The third was that it was a book that the author was giving away for free on the internet and I wanted to know why - there must be something he really passionately wants to communicate if he's willing to forego money he could easily get with his saleability.

The book is basically a conversation between two men, one of whom (Avatar) is enlightening the other by asking him probing questions about life, the universe, etc in the tradition of Socratic dialogue. Scott Adam claims in the introduction that the views of Avatar are not necessarily correct or even his own... they are just things he would like the reader to question himself so that he can come to a better understanding of his own beliefs and whether they are flawed or not.

I started reading it and soon got fed up. The views of the Avatar were by turns - obvious, well known or just silly. In fact the entire philosophy seemed like it had been written by a teenager after his first foray into metaphysics. The story was also flat and a little amateurish.

But then after skipping through the last few pages I remembered that I wasn't supposed to believe every word according to the introduction. I was supposed to figure out what was correct and what wasn't in the philosophy which was going to be more interesting because it would bring to light just how little we actually knew about our world. So cursing myself for judging it too quickly I set about trying to read it again

Unfortunately I once again found myself annoyed by the text. Some of the stuff was just wrong and I think people who don't know much about new physics, etc would assume that it was groundbreaking truth or if there was an inconsistency to mull over wouldn't spot it because after all how many people understand Einstein's general relativity view on gravity being derived from the topography of spacetime? And the people who did know anything about some of the philosophical, scientific, spiritual questions that Adams tries to raise would have been appalled at the cursory and inaccurate treatment of the subjects.

Half the reviews I have read are ecstatic because they have a whole new worldview on what God and science are all about (scary thought considering that it means that Adams has created yet another religion of mishmashed inconsistencies). Or there are those who believe that Adams has stimulated their thinking in a very novel and wonderful way as to how little we actually know for sure about our reality. I personally think that it could have been done much much much much better (simply explaining Young's double slit experiment or Michelson Morley experiments coherently would have been enough!)

The pissed off reviewers are those who forgot that it was a thought experiment and thought that Adams was actually trying to explain the universe (poorly).

I personally think that despite Adam's protestations that he doesn't really necessarily believe the views of 'Avatar' and they aren't meant to be gospel he actually takes himself far more seriously than he admits. I think that he has actually started seeing himself as a mini-guru on the new physics and it's implications on philosophy. He believes that he can and should popularize the mind bending subject so that people out there get how weird the universe actually is. In other Dilbert books by him there have been arbit chapters at the end talking about these issues. Unfortunately he doesn't understand the subject in enough depth or with the intuition required to be the popularizer and what will happen is that the people who don't read philosophical and physics books will have no idea what he is talking about and the people who do will immediately see how poor his grasp of the subject matter actually is.

It's interesting to see Scott try his hand at something that he is obviously very passionate about but not very good at. Can't blame him for taking such a huge risk. He is one of the best comic writers in the world and for Dilbert I'll forgive him anything - even this book. He's still a God in my eyes.

From http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0740747878/ref=cm_rev_next/104-9368803-6920706?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11

[gaurav_fhs]

Ok someone correct me, cause I'm losing my physics facts rapidly :D

There is a small probability that you can walk through the door without opening it ;)

[tkl]

As all Trekies know; From Quantum Physics came the development of the Quantum Torpedo:

Quantum torpedo

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
The quantum torpedo was a weapon developed by Starfleet to replace the standard photon torpedo. It was first developed in 2368, and deployed throughout the fleet in the beginning of 2371.

Quantum torpedoes have been carried aboard Defiant- and Sovereign-class vessels, amongst others. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: First Contact)

The Cardassian mobile weapon Dreadnought also carried quantum torpedoes. It was unknown whether they shared a similar design to Starfleet weapons or not. (VOY: 'Dreadnought')

Quantum torpedoes were not completely effective against solid neutronium. (DS9: "To the Death")

:)

[gaurav_fhs]

Ok someone correct me, cause I'm losing my physics facts rapidly :D

There is a small probability that you can walk through the door without opening it ;)

PS: The OP's video is in fact very very basic high school Quantum mechanics, few people in the world can actually comprehend it thoroughly.

[manixc]

This brings back painfully memory of the Schrodinger's equation.

quantum physics only concern matters of the quantum matters (aka very small stuffs) so you are not going to walk thru doors.

[dougi3000]

This brings back painfully memory of the Schrodinger's equation.

quantum physics only concern matters of the quantum matters (aka very small stuffs) so you are not going to walk thru doors.

Well there is a very miniscule chance that every particle in your body will pass through a solid object at the same time. Remeber, all atoms are like a very high percentage of empty space (80? 95%? idunno). If they all happen to line up when everything passes through each other's empty space, AND all interference negates each other... then....

[manixc]

Well there is a very miniscule chance that every particle in your body will pass through a solid object at the same time. Remeber, all atoms are like a very high percentage of empty space (80? 95%? idunno). If they all happen to line up when everything passes through each other's empty space, AND all interference negates each other... then....

that chance is like 0.0000000000001%
As I said, Quantum physics works only for the very small stuffs.
As stuffs get bigger, classical physics take over. As stuffs get really big, relativity take over.

[Crotchety Old Man]

I heard this is bs on another forum, basically it’s from What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ Which is a movie that is filled with a lot of inaccuracies and a lot of real scientists have critizied it.

I've heard quite a few people like this trying to discourage people from seeing the film What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (http://imdb.com/title/tt0399877/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9YmxlZX B8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__ ;fc=3;ft=23;fm=1)

I saw the first version of this film in the theatre a couple years ago, and found that it was very well done. Sure, they wander off into some new agey stuff from time to time, but anyone who watched the video clip in this thread will see that they also have very lucid and accurate descriptions of quantum physics and it's applications to the real world.

I suggest anyone interested might consider renting the DVD down at their local Blockbuster, and consider forming their own opinion of it.

[lip1978]

Well, if that observer part blew your mind, then you'll love the Schrodinger's Cat principal.
If you place a cat in a box along with a certain contraption, and don't observe it, it will be either alive or dead, or both or neither. (Like it described in the video for where the electrons would hit).
So, until you observe that box in any way, the cat will never truly die. But it won't live forever either.

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html
This better explains the contraption. Please note that it doesn't take into account the age or health of the cat, instead it's more about the contraption, which you need to read about.

[xKagex]

Well, if that observer part blew your mind, then you'll love the Schrodinger's Cat principal.
If you place a cat in a box along with a certain contraption, and don't observe it, it will be either alive or dead, or both or neither. (Like it described in the video for where the electrons would hit).
So, until you observe that box in any way, the cat will never truly die. But it won't live forever either.

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html
This better explains the contraption. Please note that it doesn't take into account the age or health of the cat, instead it's more about the contraption, which you need to read about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shrodinger's Cat principal strictly a theory, since it can never be tested without altering the experiment? I think it was suggested by Shrodinger to show how absurd the notion was.

[lip1978]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shrodinger's Cat principal strictly a theory, since it can never be tested without altering the experiment? I think it was suggested by Shrodinger to show how absurd the notion was.

Yep, it's a principle (which I just noticed I misspelled). Impossible to test, purely a theoretical construct.

[thelefteyeguy]

this thread is invitation for trolls to scream out "NERDS!"

but the video is fascinating :!: ...never learned this in my days in highschool...however i could have been skipping :lol:

[deal_lurker]

Interesting video... is the whole movie made the same way? I had seen an ad for this... I wanted to go see it... but never got a chance to.

The idea that an observer or a person can influence experiments reminds me of something I read in a book called the Holographic Universe. The book is a good read... it's not technical.

[mok86]

quantum physics is the devil ....lol currently taking the course at UT...lol failing it miserably :D

[lithiumli]

i think i learned something like that in OAC physics

[mlc2000]

If I may.....


Its a television show.
It was meant to entertain.
None of these people, places or spaceships exist.
None of them. Those people at the convention? They're actors.

Don't look to them for reality.

Now, turn off the computer, leave your parents house and go outside and see the real world. And leave your Star Trek uniform in the closet.



As all Trekies know; From Quantum Physics came the development of the Quantum Torpedo:

Quantum torpedo

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
The quantum torpedo was a weapon developed by Starfleet to replace the standard photon torpedo. It was first developed in 2368, and deployed throughout the fleet in the beginning of 2371.

Quantum torpedoes have been carried aboard Defiant- and Sovereign-class vessels, amongst others. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: First Contact)

The Cardassian mobile weapon Dreadnought also carried quantum torpedoes. It was unknown whether they shared a similar design to Starfleet weapons or not. (VOY: 'Dreadnought')

Quantum torpedoes were not completely effective against solid neutronium. (DS9: "To the Death")

:)

[gaurav_fhs]

This brings back painfully memory of the Schrodinger's equation.

quantum physics only concern matters of the quantum matters (aka very small stuffs) so you are not going to walk thru doors.
Not really, as size increases our ability to measure the effects of Quantum physics goes down, that doesnt mean these laws do not apply to larger than atomic size objects

[Nitram]

Not really, as size increases our ability to measure the effects of Quantum physics goes down, that doesnt mean these laws do not apply to larger than atomic size objects

He's right

whoever asked before "Technically I could walk through a door with opening it" is also right.

It's all about SPEED! The only reason we can witness these dissapearing acts is because we can propel small objects at the speeds we want. Electrons are the smallest thing we can use and we can make it go at the speed of light very easily. Now take a human body...you can't make it go that fast. But if you could, there would be a "probability" he could pass through the door by phasing out.

Now to comment on the video, this concept was taught to me in college but using light. Light is something that has both wave-like properties and particle-like properties. The particle being the proton that rides on the light's wavelenght.

Another fun thing they didnt show on the video that you guys would love is how to CANCEL light. You shine a projector at a very thin plexiglass paper and the light will go through no problem. But once you place another thin plexiglass paper that carries another polarity, there will be no light passing through it. Both these pieces of plexiglass are transparent (let light through) and very thin, as for the light, it is very bright. I didn't believe it the first time I saw this experiment.

[computer01]

For those unfamiliar with quantum physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is an interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle

Quantum theory is enough to make most people cower in the corner. Of course, we need not worry, since in 300 years or so we'll have Heisenberg compensators. Or was that Star Trek?

Q: What did Mrs Schroedinger say to Mr. Schroedinger?
A: What the hell happened to the cat? It looks half dead!

If you don't get it, don't ask!

[Crotchety Old Man]

If I may.....


Its a television show.
It was meant to entertain.
None of these people, places or spaceships exist.
None of them. Those people at the convention? They're actors.

Don't look to them for reality.

Now, turn off the computer, leave your parents house and go outside and see the real world. And leave your Star Trek uniform in the closet.
So you don't believe art can be a jumping off point for a discussion of reality? Science fiction is futile?

[tkl]

If I may.....


Its a television show.
It was meant to entertain.
None of these people, places or spaceships exist.
None of them. Those people at the convention? They're actors.

Don't look to them for reality.

Now, turn off the computer, leave your parents house and go outside and see the real world. And leave your Star Trek uniform in the closet.

Well, it took a while to catch up on some post as I do have a life. So the answer is, you may not ass-whole. Star Treks's not real ? Lighten up.

[FastFokker]

Well, it took a while to catch up on some post as I do have a life. So the answer is, you may not ass-whole. Star Treks's not real ? Lighten up.Are you calling him a robot? That sounds like a personal attack!

Otherwise, if we're alive, we have lives.. aLIVE = lives. We just don't feel the necessity to brag about having something we all have. :lol:

[Madcatmk2]

Its so philosophical that it ended up being a new religion a la matrix. The movie was posted on google but it got deleted.
For more info:
http://www.whatthebleep.com/study/study-groups.shtml

[divinemethod]

that movie was so pretentious... (not the clip) but the actual movie.. what the bleep do we know..

[gonzo_ja]

It's A Cult! Why Do People Keep Watching That Damn Movie?!?!

[xKagex]

Because it's cool?

I don't understand the whole "cult" accusation. It just tries to communicate the interesting and revolutionary facts and ideas of quantum physics. If you want to keep living your life in thinking that only what you can see and touch is real, then go ahead.

[FastFokker]

Speaking of advancements of science.. anyone heard anything new or what's going on with the big collider (RHIC) developed by CERN?

Is it operational yet, if so, any news?

[xKagex]

I personally believe Science has run into a brick wall. In order to make their current theories fit (both Einstein's theory of Relativity and Newtonian physics) they have had to invent all kinds of mathematical concepts like Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc. I think instead of trying to make all the new discoveries fit with the current model, it's time to take about 10 steps back, and become truly objective as scientists and open themselves to other models.

Science has become a religion, and the 'alternative' scientists are being kept silent because they don't get the grants, they don't get access to the giant telescopes, and they don't get printed in the major journals.

Anyway, just my little rant.

I am not an expert by any means, but one of the theories I really like is that of the 'plasma universe'. It basically says that there is a 4th state of matter called plasma, that is the dominant form of matter in the universe. It also states that there is only one force in the universe, which is the electro-magnetic force. The sun is seen not as a nuclear reactor, but as a type of anode which directs a plasma discharge. Other explanations for Red-Shift enter the equation, which means the universe is not expanding, and therefore does away with the Big Bang theory.

Controversial, but I like it.

[tep]

I personally believe Science has run into a brick wall. In order to make their current theories fit (both Einstein's theory of Relativity and Newtonian physics) they have had to invent all kinds of mathematical concepts like Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc. I think instead of trying to make all the new discoveries fit with the current model, it's time to take about 10 steps back, and become truly objective as scientists and open themselves to other models.

Science has become a religion, and the 'alternative' scientists are being kept silent because they don't get the grants, they don't get access to the giant telescopes, and they don't get printed in the major journals.

Anyway, just my little rant.

I am not an expert by any means, but one of the theories I really like is that of the 'plasma universe'. It basically says that there is a 4th state of matter called plasma, that is the dominant form of matter in the universe. It also states that there is only one force in the universe, which is the electro-magnetic force. The sun is seen not as a nuclear reactor, but as a type of anode which directs a plasma discharge. Other explanations for Red-Shift enter the equation, which means the universe is not expanding, and therefore does away with the Big Bang theory.

Controversial, but I like it.



Well, for the most part, these theories still have a chance of being testable and we just haven't discovered how yet. I think by nature religions are untestable and rely solely on faith.

[Nitram]

Well, for the most part, these theories still have a chance of being testable and we just haven't discovered how yet. I think by nature religions are untestable and rely solely on faith.

I believe you are both right.

The first thing they teach you in science is that there is no absolute truth. That means that all theories cover a part of the real theory. So by logic, they're all wrong...I think they are meant to complete each other in the end.

I also partly agree to science hitting a brick wall...but only when it comes to big-picture science. In the last few years, we have concentrated research on the atom and electrons. Mostly so that we can create that quantum computer. I think that once that level of power is achieved, then we can compute the grand scheme scientific models.

[MrDisco]

i highly recommend

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375708111/104-3636489-4263161?v=glance&n=283155

and the tv special:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

[George4twenty]

He's right

whoever asked before "Technically I could walk through a door with opening it" is also right.

It's all about SPEED! The only reason we can witness these dissapearing acts is because we can propel small objects at the speeds we want. Electrons are the smallest thing we can use and we can make it go at the speed of light very easily. Now take a human body...you can't make it go that fast. But if you could, there would be a "probability" he could pass through the door by phasing out.

Now to comment on the video, this concept was taught to me in college but using light. Light is something that has both wave-like properties and particle-like properties. The particle being the proton that rides on the light's wavelenght.

Another fun thing they didnt show on the video that you guys would love is how to CANCEL light. You shine a projector at a very thin plexiglass paper and the light will go through no problem. But once you place another thin plexiglass paper that carries another polarity, there will be no light passing through it. Both these pieces of plexiglass are transparent (let light through) and very thin, as for the light, it is very bright. I didn't believe it the first time I saw this experiment.

Just like the LCD's on calculators and polarized sunglasses.

[FastFokker]

I don't think science has hit any brick walls, every year we're continually learning more and at a faster rate than the year prior.. things are REALLY moving, it's about impossible to keep up.

If we can keep from killing ourselves through wars, plagues or climate change.. the future is VERY promising with the addition of to come scientific knowledge. I look forward to seeing the great discoveries of the next 25yrs alone.

[tep]

I don't think science has hit any brick walls, every year we're continually learning more and at a faster rate than the year prior.. things are REALLY moving, it's about impossible to keep up.

If we can keep from killing ourselves through wars, plagues or climate change.. the future is VERY promising with the addition of to come scientific knowledge. I look forward to seeing the great discoveries of the next 25yrs alone.

Science has only just begun. In no other time in earth's history has science ever progressed at this rate. Everytime we thought we've hit a wall, there's a whole new understanding revealed behind it.

[FerrisB]

Quantum physics blows my mind. I got chills watching this video. It should scare the crap out of anyone that can wrap their mind around the fact that we define our own reality, changing the state of matter and bringing it in and out of existence.

[tep]

Quantum physics blows my mind. I got chills watching this video. It should scare the crap out of anyone that can wrap their mind around the fact that we define our own reality, changing the state of matter and bringing it in and out of existence.

That's just an interpretation of the theory. The current and latest understanding, one that most physists now see as reality, is that we live in a multi-dimensional universe where all matter is in some way interconnected everywhere in the universe. In fact, the holographic theory may soon be incorporated into M-theory which suggests that we may all be living in some kind of hologram; projections of a reality that exists on the surface of something.

[FastFokker]

Quantum physics blows my mind. I got chills watching this video. It should scare the crap out of anyone that can wrap their mind around the fact that we define our own reality, changing the state of matter and bringing it in and out of existence.Hold up.. if THAT blows your mind, you've got to do some experimenting with drugs. :lol:

[FerrisB]

Hold up.. if THAT blows your mind, you've got to do some experimenting with drugs. :lol:

I've dabbled in fungus :)

[Peckerwood]

The explanation makes some simple statements but also leaves out critical data.

Firstly, the initial experiments required an observer to record the different deviations and then present them, hence the first paradox to the final explanation produced, that objects can change their activities due to simply having an observer present.

The second offence is that the conclusion fails to allow for the possibility that the imperfect senses of the observer are what is observing the experiment...(on a minor level) but with certain equipment at a remote viewing position somehow the particles do not behave differently?...obviously it has less to do with the emittance being recorded, but instead has more to do with the electro-magnetic interference that the observer physically brings with him/her once present at the experiment to be observed...or has this been taken into account?

Just some simple ideas from a simpleton observer ;)

[Flyer]

Quantum physics gives me a headache...

[tep]

The explanation makes some simple statements but also leaves out critical data.

Firstly, the initial experiments required an observer to record the different deviations and then present them, hence the first paradox to the final explanation produced, that objects can change their activities due to simply having an observer present.

The second offence is that the conclusion fails to allow for the possibility that the imperfect senses of the observer are what is observing the experiment...(on a minor level) but with certain equipment at a remote viewing position somehow the particles do not behave differently?...obviously it has less to do with the emittance being recorded, but instead has more to do with the electro-magnetic interference that the observer physically brings with him/her once present at the experiment to be observed...or has this been taken into account?

Just some simple ideas from a simpleton observer ;)

Just to be brief, yes it has been taken into account with these experiments because this kind of experiment can also be enlarged to ecompass light that comes from nearby stars. If you do a bit more searching, you'll find that there are experiments that show how an observer here on earth affects the path of a photon emitted from a distant star passing through a gravitational field (similar to the slits in the slots). And if that was the case, than what you would suggest is that the electrofield of the observer is somehow affecting things that are light years away.

[Peckerwood]

So then what specifically is causing the change in path...or is it that the future errant change in path is perhaps causing the observer to turn and then observe it occur?

Either the particle is being affected by the observer, or the observer is being affected by the particle.

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

But there is more as the video alluded to. It isn't the particle that going through the slit, it's a wave. What is the wave consisting of. Probabilities!!! The two slits are the most probable paths for the waves to take(every path is possible, just the two slits are the most probable)

Now the last step, the observer. I.e. the observer is trying to find out the particle position(path). Well the theory goes, that the observer collapses the quantum wave equation(wave of probabilities). So, by observing he causes the photon to choose a path(put a more philosophical way he created reality).



Do you know what this means? We just hit the tip of the ice berg and are on the verge or altering the future and ripping the fabric of space/continuum.


Well there is a very miniscule chance that every particle in your body will pass through a solid object at the same time. Remeber, all atoms are like a very high percentage of empty space (80? 95%? idunno). If they all happen to line up when everything passes through each other's empty space, AND all interference negates each other... then....

This explains the dissappearance of people and their re-appearance in a totally different place.

[Tig]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum+physics

In physics, wave-particle duality holds that light and matter can exhibit properties of both waves and of particles. It is a central concept of quantum physics.

Watch the video and see that light and matter show signs of 'consciousness'.

Also, doesn't the fact that observation alters results mean that
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!?

light and matter do not show signs of consciousness. The electron does not make a "conscious" decision to collapse the wavefunction when it "reazlizes" that it will be detected.

The truth is that no one knows what a wavefunction is. They dont know if it represents the total sum possibilities for the electron, or if it is the embodiment of the electron, or if it is a mathematical construct that represents all we can know about the electron, or if it is a physical entity that pushes the electron around here and there.

And no one knows why the wavefunction collapses into a particle. Or even if it does collapse at all. And if it does they dont know if it collapses spontaneously, or because it comingled with other matter, or because it was detected, or because the human consciousness caused it to collapse, or because of some other reason(s).

The greatest minds of the 20th and 21st century have taken a run at this puzzle and 70 years later, they're no closer to figuring it out than they were at the start.

There are various interpretations, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses and at the end of the day if you ask ten different theoretical physicists what causes a wavefunction to collapse you'll get nine similar answers and one "who cares?"

Quantum mechanics is highly successful in guessing where the electron is going to land but it cant tell you anything about how it got there.

Observation does not alter results in the sense that it changes the past. All it means is that depending on our observation, there is only so much that we can gleam from reality. If reality was a really hot girl that you were trying to score with and observation was your pick-up lines, then depending on what pickup line you used and how well you used it, you might get to see her with her top off or in her thong. And until you use your pickup lines youll have no clue as to whether shell do one thing or the other. Which is the same as saying that until all observations become available there is no way for you to know if the electron did this or did that. Yeah you can try to freak everyone out by saying that it did both things simultaneously or that it did neither, and even though neither of these scenario's are ruled out by qm, the truth is that you have no clue what it did and there's no point in even asking that question.